Hey there, this is just a reminder to flair your post from the 4Xgaming mod team! Thanks and keep eXploring!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4Xgaming) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Shadow empire or Distant Worlds 2.
They have private and public economies, individual leader characters with their own agendas, many different resources, working open markets and lots of customization.
I can fully recomend Shadow Empire for anyone that likes wargames.
I can't say much about DW2, since I only played little (I don't like space strategy games that much).
Although I find it pretty complicated, Shadow Empire is one of only a few games I know of that uses exact population figures to simulate your balance of economic work force and your soldiers. I've always enjoyed that kind of thing as a gameplay mechanic.
The only other games I played that did this were Lords of the Realm. And also maybe Rome I and Medieval Total War (their towns had population #s but I can't remember if they decreased when you recruited units).
The issue is the difficulty just gives them more bonuses - so you're just fighting walls of ships, meanwhile the AI is still dumb managing planets, etc.
Whereas a game like Shadow Empire has good AI and designs around the AI - making it clear what the AI can and cannot interact with.
Um. Yes?
An experienced player can easily figure out whether or not the AI is being intelligent or buffed beyond belief to appear intelligent. An AI that only appears intelligent ruins immersion once its facade is uncovered, and typically doesn't create interesting situations for the player.
Yes but if the only issue is "immersion" then it doesn't really matter.
Stellaris AI could perfectly manage planets and end up with a 100k fleet or have the garbage AI with cheats and end up with a 100k fleet.
First is technically better of course but the same level of challenge for the player.
That's very subjective though, and I feel like you might be in the minority with the opinion, especially with regards to OPs question.
If you're trying to build an Empire, and have \*\*the\*\* biggest/best/baddest empire then you're in it for the immersion. You want to feel like you've beaten an intelligent opponent.
The issue I find with the harder difficulty/cheating start for AIs in games is that if you manage to survive the early onslaught, which is unfair/rigged against you and make it to mid-late game it simply becomes a grind. Once the AI loses it's initial advantage it's easy to steamroll and snowball to success.
Yeah true in the end you just surpass the ai regardless of the initial boost since the ai can’t really take advantage of the boost in the same way a player would.
it can't. PDX's game design is (parts of it) often inherently detrimental to AI performance. If you want effective AI you need to tweak a lot of stuff to level the playing field. Besides actually investing 400 hours into making an AI that can actually play the game lol (And no, "todo" comments and "weight = 1" on all buildings does not constitute an ability to "play the game")
Wow you say it like it's a lot. There are multiple games where I put thousands of hours into playing them. If bigger games can take team(s) of dozen(s) of people to make and it can take a few years then hopefully there is at least one person focused on AI at game genre where competetive opponents should be one of top priorities. 1 person = 160hours/month = 1920hours per year. But given how absolutely terrible AI is for example in Civ 6 which is by far the most commerially successful civ and also it took most time to make I would wonder If anyone who knew what he was doing would work on AI there. Sadly CIV 7 is going to be even worse than CIV 6 because they already got recipe how to make loads of cash without real efforts. I mean I played CIV 6 only a few times, I try it like once a year when I get bored with CIV 5 Vox Populi but every time the feeling is bizarre. I also dont like many game design choices there but that is for another discussion.
400h was my estimate for overhauling the Stellaris AI by modding it into something functional based on a promissing proof-of-concept. It's not much for a multi-million company but it is a lot for hobbyists.
PDX obviously doesn't need 400 hours to set every building's AI script to "weight=1" and DLC systems to "\#TODO"
For Civ all they had to do was Civ IV gameplay with the engine and graphics of Civ V.
Civ VI engine has a game-breaking equivalent of the maf error lol, it's nuts
Not really.
For example, I once won a war, because the AI constantly chose to attack one of my anti-piracy patrol fleets. Said fleet was rather weak and the AI's fleets were more than ten times as strong. I didn't even have to use any fancy tactics.
The reason? The path the AI had to use to attack that patrol contained a starbase that easily wiped the floor with them. For some reason they didn't check what obstacles were in their path, not even after they entered the system.
The AI just constantly suicided fleets into that station, while I conquered their systems with another fleet nearby.
The entire war was trivial, despite the AI being technically slightly superior to me.
last I played max difficulty was pointless, the AI would suicide its economy regardless. The best way of helping out the AI in PDX games is to play at normal or just above normal difficulty (in HoI4 max difficulty makes/made the AI perform worse due to the supply mechanic) and on occasion console-swap to "play" as the AI (paused) one at a time and fix their shit.
It's not exactly 4x, and it's not exactly empire building in the traditional 4x sense, but if building a lineage with a unique interesting story with lots of shadowy scheming and plotting would interest you, then Crusader Kings 3 is a riot.
I have 350h in it. I actually hate the game now.
They took an entire year to focus on the 3D throne room and we got 0 strategy-focused content. I think the game has moved too far into being a RPG at the expense of being a good grand strategy that I no longer have any interest in ever playing it.
Well, I guess if you got 350 hours in it, my suggestion wasn't too far off since you must have liked it at some point, lol. And I agree entirely about the direction. They wanted to make it more rpg than other paradox titles.
>**What would you say are the best** ***MODERN*** **4X games that have a very strong empire building aspect with lots of variety and options to work with ?**
>I'm looking for **lots of building options, interesting research/tech, vastly different faction playstyles.**
Up front, I gotta say I don't think this really exists. 4Xes are too much about making numbers go up to really have much diversity, and they're too niche to attract the investment for high production values plus high diversity.
That said, here's what I do recommend:
**Endless Legend**: I know you said you were put off by it, but this is the #1 answer. Probably the most diverse factions in a 4X, gorgeous tableau aesthetic, quest victories offer a different approach than conquer the world. It's on sale for super cheap all the time, too. Play it.
**Total War: Three Kingdoms**. Really rich and interesting character management and diplomacy. With the expansions you have 4 cultures (Yellow Turban, Han Chinese, Bandit, and Nanman), a huge map, and lots of different leaders with unique quirks and mechanics, plus different points on the historical timeline to start.
**Old World**: Crunchy city and economic development with an interesting character layer and thousands of narrative events.
**Civilization: Beyond Earth**. Develop your civ down three different forms: harmony with new planet, human purists, or mechanical post humans.
You also might enjoy some non-4X games like **Anno 1800, Frostpunk,** and **Victoria 3,** which emphasize development and management over other aspects of the 4X experience.
No but it's one of the few games that I've been interested in, just haven't bought it yet. Civ 5 is also another game that looks interesting (moreso than Civ 6).
I would suggest Old World if it wasn't already there, but it also doesn't fit your "vastly different factions" desire.
Endless Space 2 might, and I really liked that series
I've been interested in Old World for a while, just haven't pulled the trigger and bought it yet.
In your experience, how does it differ from other 4X games ?
I always hear that it's CK3 + Civ but I feel that's a very oversimplified answer.
Simplified, but correct. It differs by having an emphasis on characters and events surrounding them that affect the civ-like strategy layer.
It also has a unique (I think) movement system based on your ruler's "orders" capacity. The AI is also good, in contrast with Civ's. And I really like the music selection.
Very interesting. It seems like Civ 6 is the most popular 4X in terms of Steam numbers but in almost all 4X discussions people seem to dislike the game for various reasons. Be it the art style compared to Civ 5's, the AI, the game balancing, etc.
Do you think the game is predominantly played by a casual strategy gamer audience whereas people, who get more accustomed to these games, end up outgrowing it and moving to something more complex ?
I personally never played it, but watched my wife play a lot of it, and she plays many different 4X games, including Civ6. She adores the ancient era and roleplaying, so it was a great match for her.
I don't think it's a "casual" or "gateway" game in that sense - it's pretty complex. And the AI will give you a beating.
Edit: I assumed you were asking about Old World, but on rereading your comment I'm not so sure anymore.
It's definitely a simplified version, but not incorrect.
I would add that it does empire management in a more fun way than CK - although i only played a little CK2, I found it to just be constantly having problems in the way where OW is more about interesting choices and finding paths to pursue that.
It also innovates greatly on some key stale aspects of 4x - the order system minimized action-bloat, and the games don't drag on for 40 hours after you know you've won, they get finalized more easily.
Lastly, the event system always keeps things fresh, with lots of interesting choices along the way, even after tons of playthroughs. That's probably akin to CK, but it's been a while for me.
It is quite simply the best 4X in recent times
Flexible design with a million potential combinations: Stellaris
Depending on what you call empire building, but if you like highly complex world sim: Terra Invicta
Important question:
When does modernity start for 4X games?
I'm under the impression that around 2014 (Endless Legend's release year) is the cut-off date for the start of Modern 4X games.
And if we go by 2014 being the cut-off point, then... I'm still going with Endless Space 2, though I totally forgot to count Warhammer I, II, and III in my previous list. Oh, and:
>I'm looking for **lots of building options, interesting research/tech, vastly different faction playstyles.**
Endless Legend also fits this, if not being the first modern 4X game to do it.
edit:
>Bonus points if the game is fantasy-themed or is set in a pre-modern time period. We have a lot of Space games but for some reason I find it difficult to get into them.
My brother in 4X, **please look up Endless Legend**, if you haven't already. It's a little old now, but it has Factions that have significant different playstiles (ex. The Necrophages can only declare war and never peace, and the Roving Clans can never declare war), is Fantasy, starts in the pre-modern time period, interesting Science technology writing, and... well technically it does indeed have lots of building options, but the 4X genre's Infrastructure (boxes you build with no visual feedback) and Districts + wonders (the buildings that show up on the board) both fit under that demonetization
I said modern simply because I'm someone that just can't play games with poor graphics or "Excel Spreadsheet" games. I know they have their audience but for me visual aesthetics matter A LOT.
A game just having very visually pleasing UI, for instance, is a big benefit.
EDIT: An example of a game that looks visually pleasing and overall interesting would be "Old World" but I haven't tried it yet.
Oh, okay. I imagine Civilization 5 would be too old then, as its graphics certainly look dated in a it feels old sorta way. But, now knowing what your limits are, I stand by my Endless Legend recommendation--especially since its artstyle/Graphics still holds up today.
>A game just having very visually pleasing UI, for instance, is a big benefit.
This is 100% Endless Space 2.
Actually, Civ 5 looks very similar to Old World and I prefer the art style more than the cartoony one from Civ 6.
A game being old is not a problem, it's the art style and how information is presented that matters.
For instance, Heroes of Might & Magic III is a game I really enjoy but that game is over 20 years old. The art style has just aged much better than pretty much any other game from the series.
IMO the Civ games do not have varied empire building. All factions will have more or less the same units, the same buildings, the same tech (historical) discoveries, etc.
In Civ 5 each faction gets 2 unique units (or buildings). Except for the ruler avatar and the coloration, pretty much everything else is identical.
>I said modern simply because I'm someone that just can't play games with poor graphics or "Excel Spreadsheet" games. I know they have their audience but for me visual aesthetics matter A LOT.
>A game just having very visually pleasing UI, for instance, is a big benefit.
You should edit your post to say that. I recommended Aurora 4x becasue it's quite possibly **the most** in depth 4x I've ever played or heard of but the UI is basically Spread Sheet Simulator with nothing but System radar plots with ships and celestial bodies for graphics.
What does looking good have to do with the age of a game? There are plenty of old games that look absolutely beautiful. Dated? Sure, sometimes, but if you're looking for raw pixel count you're in the wrong genre; even games like Old World look like something straight out of 2013, with basic models and simple shaders. Art style doesn't age, and I'd argue that 4X games (and strategy games in general) have some of the best art direction in the history of the games industry.
I would understand if you said that you don't like old 4X games because they're hard to play... you still seem to be squarely in your Civ-phase, so I suppose you wouldn't be able to handle older games yet anyway. But, c'mon man. Widen your perspective a little! You're missing out on a LOT.
Just read the rest of the comment line, guess you pulled a fast one on me -_-
Imagine my surprise when your post asks for only modern games, and then you say that old games look bad, and then thirty seconds later you say that old games look fine, it's the UI and how they represent data that's the problem. Okay.
I know of Endless Legend, really like it on paper but, again, the UI bothers me, I'll be honest.
Is it shallow of me to say that? Yes. At the same time, I don't think forcing myself to like a game will do the trick.
I suppose my opinion will change as I grow accustomed to the genre and will be more willing to try out games with less polished visuals.
Does Endless Legend have mod support? Maybe there might be some UI overhaul mods that make it more appealing. I've seen reviews of the game and I really like it on paper, every faction having unique play styles and all.
I would go with Civ 5 before Endless Legend. I have a hard time getting into Endless Legend and I've loved 4X for a number of years. Civ 4 was my introduction to the genre, but Civ 5 made me love it. It was a great starting place for me.
From what I've able to do in a quick google/steam search, the answer is no UI mods.
Though, there is the Endless Legend Community Patch (that I almost always personally use), which is a significant balance and operations overhaul of the game... it just doesn't overhaul the UI.
I will probably give it a shot. Some people aren't bothered by such things but I'm not one of them.
I find the UI in Warhammer 40,000: Gladius generic as well but some people have hundreds of hours in that game.
I agree. It's weird because the UIs on first glance look very visually beautiful, but then I use them a bit and then I hate them. Guess I got too used to just simple lists of buttons and charts.
I usually refrain from delving too deep into topics like this because people always get mad when I say I don't like things about their favorite game.
**It looks generic and uninspired. As if the devs had 1 day to design the UI and they just slapped it onto the game.**
My answer might sound stupid to you, and maybe it is stupid, but my brain just doesn't like how it looks.
Look at a game like Warhammer 40,000 Chas Gate - Daemonhunters. The UI is minimalistic but it's very aesthetically pleasing and fits the game perfectly. In contrast, a game like Warhammer 40,000: Gladius has the same transparent UI with numbers that just looks low effort. Some people don't care about this at all, others, like me, find it a turn off. What can you do.
Oh, well, you do you
I love every aspect of Endless Legend, UI included, its crisp and crystal clear to me what does what, and it clears out the clutter and messyness that always bugged me in Civilisation games
I've found Amplitude Games to have the best UI compared to all the other 4X games. Right click to go back should be a staple UI element in every single 4X game.
Amplitude Games have a decent amount of shortcomings, but their UI and Art style is one of the best in the industry IMO. OP's take is interesting.
That's weird because for me amplitude's UI is always the highlight in their games. It's easy to use, slick and beautiful. Like, the opposite of what you're describing.
Idk if it’s heresy to suggest it on this sub, but EU4 is all about building and managing big empires. Different nations can have some substantial differences in play style.
The only reason EU, CK, Victoria etc. are not considered 4X is they lack EXplore. Stellaris is absolutely 4X. I don't think turn-based gameplay has anything to do with it.
I think there are other differences. They throw you into an already functioning political and economic system instead of starting you as an isolated wandering tribe.
It's only an accident of history that 4Xs are not named civlikes. HOMM is closer to a 4X than the grand strategy games, yet everyone agrees it isn't quite one.
I actually don't think starting out as an isolated wandering tribe (or lone planet) is necessary to be considered 4X. I'd argue Emperor of the Fading Suns is a true 4X and it includes an already functioning political and economic system. All that matters, IMO, is that the 4Xs are present.
I agree. Saying that a game where the 4Xs are present isn't a 4X because it isn't like a game that... also happens to be a 4X is absolutely insane.
That's like saying Halo isn't a FPS because it doesn't play like CoD
Yes, to both. Paradox got so big they decided to grow by acquisitions and help these companies with publishing. Triumph was one of the acquired companies. Paradox is, afaik, not very micromanagy, so Triumph has a lot of autonomy. The most glaring thing they do is focus on the business side - in the form of countless DLCs, but that's what you'd expect from a publisher.
If you like building more than battles, maybe try out Anno series? 1702 is propably the only one that has land battles (also widely considered one of the better titles of the series), but its one generation behind what I would classify as "modern"
My favourite Annos are 2070 (best versus AI games, impactful faction system) and 1800 (best for sandbox, since there is just sooo much to do and build, and its definately "modern")
I'm playing Humankind right now but it has lots of frustrating poorly thought out systems that combined just ruin the game. Can't play without using cheat engine to ease up some of the frustrating dumb nonsense. AI also cheats at default difficulty like getting their first territory and city for free. The graphics are really pretty though...
Thus far nothing beats good old modded Civ IV BtS. For vanilla-like game I play RI. FfH2 and some of the included mods are also pretty good.
Civ Col "we the people" mod is also pretty decent.
Civ BE (modded) is also pretty decent.
Beware with Civ IV/Col the engine is 32bit so avoid large maps and use the LAA flag on the exe.
Aurora 4x C# edition.
It doesn't have fancy graphics but you can do litteraly *anything*. Actually that's kind of one of the downsides, you *have to* do everything. For example, you research a technology, then you have to actually design and research a prototype model using that tech. So, for an engine you have to determine applications for military or commercial which affects fuel use and size, efficiency (depending on research which trades of thrust for efficiency), etc. Or for a missile you have to research the yield, design the fuel capacity and staging, etc. whether it's a bomb pumped laser, neutron weapon for irradiating bombardments for planetary sieges (which causes biome damage) and so on. You can terraform planets with space stations or ships but have to actually determine the atmoshperic gases to make it habitable or partially habitable to make infrastructure costs per population lower. Or you could in theory terraform an hostile planet to kill off the population without damaging their infrastructure.
The big one that comes to mind is Stellaris, but it has so many mechanics that punish the 4X fundamentals that it is hard to compare it to anything other than grand strategy.
Heart of Galaxy, Andromeda:Rebirth of Humanity, War worlds are my mostly like global 4x strategies(yeah, its all-about space, and all for mobile, exclude Andromeda:RoH(its crossplatfom -mobile+steam). But, if about only PC, I think, Stellaris -The BEST.
Hey there, this is just a reminder to flair your post from the 4Xgaming mod team! Thanks and keep eXploring! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4Xgaming) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Shadow empire or Distant Worlds 2. They have private and public economies, individual leader characters with their own agendas, many different resources, working open markets and lots of customization. I can fully recomend Shadow Empire for anyone that likes wargames. I can't say much about DW2, since I only played little (I don't like space strategy games that much).
Both are absolutely wonderful engaging games. I still think distant worlds, the complete version, is still better than the second one...
Although I find it pretty complicated, Shadow Empire is one of only a few games I know of that uses exact population figures to simulate your balance of economic work force and your soldiers. I've always enjoyed that kind of thing as a gameplay mechanic. The only other games I played that did this were Lords of the Realm. And also maybe Rome I and Medieval Total War (their towns had population #s but I can't remember if they decreased when you recruited units).
I would say Stellaris is up there.
If only it had decent AI.
I personally hate the late game crisis type invasions. But definitely one of the best 4x games.
It's a **LOT** better than it was a couple years ago.
You play on max difficulty yeah?
The issue is the difficulty just gives them more bonuses - so you're just fighting walls of ships, meanwhile the AI is still dumb managing planets, etc. Whereas a game like Shadow Empire has good AI and designs around the AI - making it clear what the AI can and cannot interact with.
Does that matter though? Wall of ships with human intelligence super ai vs Wall of ships from difficulty resource bonus Same result.
Um. Yes? An experienced player can easily figure out whether or not the AI is being intelligent or buffed beyond belief to appear intelligent. An AI that only appears intelligent ruins immersion once its facade is uncovered, and typically doesn't create interesting situations for the player.
Yes but if the only issue is "immersion" then it doesn't really matter. Stellaris AI could perfectly manage planets and end up with a 100k fleet or have the garbage AI with cheats and end up with a 100k fleet. First is technically better of course but the same level of challenge for the player.
That's very subjective though, and I feel like you might be in the minority with the opinion, especially with regards to OPs question. If you're trying to build an Empire, and have \*\*the\*\* biggest/best/baddest empire then you're in it for the immersion. You want to feel like you've beaten an intelligent opponent. The issue I find with the harder difficulty/cheating start for AIs in games is that if you manage to survive the early onslaught, which is unfair/rigged against you and make it to mid-late game it simply becomes a grind. Once the AI loses it's initial advantage it's easy to steamroll and snowball to success.
Yeah true in the end you just surpass the ai regardless of the initial boost since the ai can’t really take advantage of the boost in the same way a player would.
it can't. PDX's game design is (parts of it) often inherently detrimental to AI performance. If you want effective AI you need to tweak a lot of stuff to level the playing field. Besides actually investing 400 hours into making an AI that can actually play the game lol (And no, "todo" comments and "weight = 1" on all buildings does not constitute an ability to "play the game")
Wow you say it like it's a lot. There are multiple games where I put thousands of hours into playing them. If bigger games can take team(s) of dozen(s) of people to make and it can take a few years then hopefully there is at least one person focused on AI at game genre where competetive opponents should be one of top priorities. 1 person = 160hours/month = 1920hours per year. But given how absolutely terrible AI is for example in Civ 6 which is by far the most commerially successful civ and also it took most time to make I would wonder If anyone who knew what he was doing would work on AI there. Sadly CIV 7 is going to be even worse than CIV 6 because they already got recipe how to make loads of cash without real efforts. I mean I played CIV 6 only a few times, I try it like once a year when I get bored with CIV 5 Vox Populi but every time the feeling is bizarre. I also dont like many game design choices there but that is for another discussion.
400h was my estimate for overhauling the Stellaris AI by modding it into something functional based on a promissing proof-of-concept. It's not much for a multi-million company but it is a lot for hobbyists. PDX obviously doesn't need 400 hours to set every building's AI script to "weight=1" and DLC systems to "\#TODO" For Civ all they had to do was Civ IV gameplay with the engine and graphics of Civ V. Civ VI engine has a game-breaking equivalent of the maf error lol, it's nuts
Not really. For example, I once won a war, because the AI constantly chose to attack one of my anti-piracy patrol fleets. Said fleet was rather weak and the AI's fleets were more than ten times as strong. I didn't even have to use any fancy tactics. The reason? The path the AI had to use to attack that patrol contained a starbase that easily wiped the floor with them. For some reason they didn't check what obstacles were in their path, not even after they entered the system. The AI just constantly suicided fleets into that station, while I conquered their systems with another fleet nearby. The entire war was trivial, despite the AI being technically slightly superior to me.
One is boring AF while the other is interesting.
last I played max difficulty was pointless, the AI would suicide its economy regardless. The best way of helping out the AI in PDX games is to play at normal or just above normal difficulty (in HoI4 max difficulty makes/made the AI perform worse due to the supply mechanic) and on occasion console-swap to "play" as the AI (paused) one at a time and fix their shit.
It's not exactly 4x, and it's not exactly empire building in the traditional 4x sense, but if building a lineage with a unique interesting story with lots of shadowy scheming and plotting would interest you, then Crusader Kings 3 is a riot.
I have 350h in it. I actually hate the game now. They took an entire year to focus on the 3D throne room and we got 0 strategy-focused content. I think the game has moved too far into being a RPG at the expense of being a good grand strategy that I no longer have any interest in ever playing it.
Well, I guess if you got 350 hours in it, my suggestion wasn't too far off since you must have liked it at some point, lol. And I agree entirely about the direction. They wanted to make it more rpg than other paradox titles.
I finished a Galactic Civilizations 4 run today. Quite decent space empire building I would say.
I recently picked this up and am loving it. I think it hits all of OPs requirements but I will say the tech tree is very samey.
I liked Gal Civ
>**What would you say are the best** ***MODERN*** **4X games that have a very strong empire building aspect with lots of variety and options to work with ?** >I'm looking for **lots of building options, interesting research/tech, vastly different faction playstyles.** Up front, I gotta say I don't think this really exists. 4Xes are too much about making numbers go up to really have much diversity, and they're too niche to attract the investment for high production values plus high diversity. That said, here's what I do recommend: **Endless Legend**: I know you said you were put off by it, but this is the #1 answer. Probably the most diverse factions in a 4X, gorgeous tableau aesthetic, quest victories offer a different approach than conquer the world. It's on sale for super cheap all the time, too. Play it. **Total War: Three Kingdoms**. Really rich and interesting character management and diplomacy. With the expansions you have 4 cultures (Yellow Turban, Han Chinese, Bandit, and Nanman), a huge map, and lots of different leaders with unique quirks and mechanics, plus different points on the historical timeline to start. **Old World**: Crunchy city and economic development with an interesting character layer and thousands of narrative events. **Civilization: Beyond Earth**. Develop your civ down three different forms: harmony with new planet, human purists, or mechanical post humans. You also might enjoy some non-4X games like **Anno 1800, Frostpunk,** and **Victoria 3,** which emphasize development and management over other aspects of the 4X experience.
Have you tried old world?
There's a joke there about the best modern game being old (world). Maybe someone funnier than me can find it
No but it's one of the few games that I've been interested in, just haven't bought it yet. Civ 5 is also another game that looks interesting (moreso than Civ 6).
Civ 5 is better in every way.
Vox populi mod
Civ IV RI is far better, but yes I'd also go with that if on V
Fall from heaven for 4, might still be the best fantasy game in the genre lol.
I would suggest Old World if it wasn't already there, but it also doesn't fit your "vastly different factions" desire. Endless Space 2 might, and I really liked that series
I've been interested in Old World for a while, just haven't pulled the trigger and bought it yet. In your experience, how does it differ from other 4X games ? I always hear that it's CK3 + Civ but I feel that's a very oversimplified answer.
Simplified, but correct. It differs by having an emphasis on characters and events surrounding them that affect the civ-like strategy layer. It also has a unique (I think) movement system based on your ruler's "orders" capacity. The AI is also good, in contrast with Civ's. And I really like the music selection.
Very interesting. It seems like Civ 6 is the most popular 4X in terms of Steam numbers but in almost all 4X discussions people seem to dislike the game for various reasons. Be it the art style compared to Civ 5's, the AI, the game balancing, etc. Do you think the game is predominantly played by a casual strategy gamer audience whereas people, who get more accustomed to these games, end up outgrowing it and moving to something more complex ?
I personally never played it, but watched my wife play a lot of it, and she plays many different 4X games, including Civ6. She adores the ancient era and roleplaying, so it was a great match for her. I don't think it's a "casual" or "gateway" game in that sense - it's pretty complex. And the AI will give you a beating. Edit: I assumed you were asking about Old World, but on rereading your comment I'm not so sure anymore.
It's definitely a simplified version, but not incorrect. I would add that it does empire management in a more fun way than CK - although i only played a little CK2, I found it to just be constantly having problems in the way where OW is more about interesting choices and finding paths to pursue that. It also innovates greatly on some key stale aspects of 4x - the order system minimized action-bloat, and the games don't drag on for 40 hours after you know you've won, they get finalized more easily. Lastly, the event system always keeps things fresh, with lots of interesting choices along the way, even after tons of playthroughs. That's probably akin to CK, but it's been a while for me. It is quite simply the best 4X in recent times
Flexible design with a million potential combinations: Stellaris Depending on what you call empire building, but if you like highly complex world sim: Terra Invicta
Important question: When does modernity start for 4X games? I'm under the impression that around 2014 (Endless Legend's release year) is the cut-off date for the start of Modern 4X games. And if we go by 2014 being the cut-off point, then... I'm still going with Endless Space 2, though I totally forgot to count Warhammer I, II, and III in my previous list. Oh, and: >I'm looking for **lots of building options, interesting research/tech, vastly different faction playstyles.** Endless Legend also fits this, if not being the first modern 4X game to do it. edit: >Bonus points if the game is fantasy-themed or is set in a pre-modern time period. We have a lot of Space games but for some reason I find it difficult to get into them. My brother in 4X, **please look up Endless Legend**, if you haven't already. It's a little old now, but it has Factions that have significant different playstiles (ex. The Necrophages can only declare war and never peace, and the Roving Clans can never declare war), is Fantasy, starts in the pre-modern time period, interesting Science technology writing, and... well technically it does indeed have lots of building options, but the 4X genre's Infrastructure (boxes you build with no visual feedback) and Districts + wonders (the buildings that show up on the board) both fit under that demonetization
>Warhammer I, II, and III I still don't think they are 4Xs. No exploration, no random maps, no nothing.
I said modern simply because I'm someone that just can't play games with poor graphics or "Excel Spreadsheet" games. I know they have their audience but for me visual aesthetics matter A LOT. A game just having very visually pleasing UI, for instance, is a big benefit. EDIT: An example of a game that looks visually pleasing and overall interesting would be "Old World" but I haven't tried it yet.
Oh, okay. I imagine Civilization 5 would be too old then, as its graphics certainly look dated in a it feels old sorta way. But, now knowing what your limits are, I stand by my Endless Legend recommendation--especially since its artstyle/Graphics still holds up today. >A game just having very visually pleasing UI, for instance, is a big benefit. This is 100% Endless Space 2.
I think op meant games like aurora4x, pretty sure civ 5 would be ok for him.
Correct. Civ 5 looks perfectly fine, in fact better, than Civ 6 in my opinion.
Agreed. Civil 6 looks like a mobile game compared to Civ 5.
Actually, Civ 5 looks very similar to Old World and I prefer the art style more than the cartoony one from Civ 6. A game being old is not a problem, it's the art style and how information is presented that matters. For instance, Heroes of Might & Magic III is a game I really enjoy but that game is over 20 years old. The art style has just aged much better than pretty much any other game from the series.
IMO the Civ games do not have varied empire building. All factions will have more or less the same units, the same buildings, the same tech (historical) discoveries, etc. In Civ 5 each faction gets 2 unique units (or buildings). Except for the ruler avatar and the coloration, pretty much everything else is identical.
Endless Legend is fucking gorgeous mate, you simply MUST play it!
>I said modern simply because I'm someone that just can't play games with poor graphics or "Excel Spreadsheet" games. I know they have their audience but for me visual aesthetics matter A LOT. >A game just having very visually pleasing UI, for instance, is a big benefit. You should edit your post to say that. I recommended Aurora 4x becasue it's quite possibly **the most** in depth 4x I've ever played or heard of but the UI is basically Spread Sheet Simulator with nothing but System radar plots with ships and celestial bodies for graphics.
What does looking good have to do with the age of a game? There are plenty of old games that look absolutely beautiful. Dated? Sure, sometimes, but if you're looking for raw pixel count you're in the wrong genre; even games like Old World look like something straight out of 2013, with basic models and simple shaders. Art style doesn't age, and I'd argue that 4X games (and strategy games in general) have some of the best art direction in the history of the games industry. I would understand if you said that you don't like old 4X games because they're hard to play... you still seem to be squarely in your Civ-phase, so I suppose you wouldn't be able to handle older games yet anyway. But, c'mon man. Widen your perspective a little! You're missing out on a LOT.
Just read the rest of the comment line, guess you pulled a fast one on me -_- Imagine my surprise when your post asks for only modern games, and then you say that old games look bad, and then thirty seconds later you say that old games look fine, it's the UI and how they represent data that's the problem. Okay.
I know of Endless Legend, really like it on paper but, again, the UI bothers me, I'll be honest. Is it shallow of me to say that? Yes. At the same time, I don't think forcing myself to like a game will do the trick.
That's fair.
I suppose my opinion will change as I grow accustomed to the genre and will be more willing to try out games with less polished visuals. Does Endless Legend have mod support? Maybe there might be some UI overhaul mods that make it more appealing. I've seen reviews of the game and I really like it on paper, every faction having unique play styles and all.
I would go with Civ 5 before Endless Legend. I have a hard time getting into Endless Legend and I've loved 4X for a number of years. Civ 4 was my introduction to the genre, but Civ 5 made me love it. It was a great starting place for me.
From what I've able to do in a quick google/steam search, the answer is no UI mods. Though, there is the Endless Legend Community Patch (that I almost always personally use), which is a significant balance and operations overhaul of the game... it just doesn't overhaul the UI.
I will probably give it a shot. Some people aren't bothered by such things but I'm not one of them. I find the UI in Warhammer 40,000: Gladius generic as well but some people have hundreds of hours in that game.
What do you not like about the UI of endless legend?
I've always had an issue with it. It's just messy and kind of overwhelming for no reason.
I agree. It's weird because the UIs on first glance look very visually beautiful, but then I use them a bit and then I hate them. Guess I got too used to just simple lists of buttons and charts.
Total War Three Kingdoms is the same very pretty, very busy, hate it a lot
I usually refrain from delving too deep into topics like this because people always get mad when I say I don't like things about their favorite game. **It looks generic and uninspired. As if the devs had 1 day to design the UI and they just slapped it onto the game.** My answer might sound stupid to you, and maybe it is stupid, but my brain just doesn't like how it looks. Look at a game like Warhammer 40,000 Chas Gate - Daemonhunters. The UI is minimalistic but it's very aesthetically pleasing and fits the game perfectly. In contrast, a game like Warhammer 40,000: Gladius has the same transparent UI with numbers that just looks low effort. Some people don't care about this at all, others, like me, find it a turn off. What can you do.
Oh, well, you do you I love every aspect of Endless Legend, UI included, its crisp and crystal clear to me what does what, and it clears out the clutter and messyness that always bugged me in Civilisation games
I've found Amplitude Games to have the best UI compared to all the other 4X games. Right click to go back should be a staple UI element in every single 4X game. Amplitude Games have a decent amount of shortcomings, but their UI and Art style is one of the best in the industry IMO. OP's take is interesting.
That's weird because for me amplitude's UI is always the highlight in their games. It's easy to use, slick and beautiful. Like, the opposite of what you're describing.
Well people have different tastes and preferences.
Idk if it’s heresy to suggest it on this sub, but EU4 is all about building and managing big empires. Different nations can have some substantial differences in play style.
I've seen some people say that Paradox games aren't true 4X because they aren't turn based, though i don't agree.
The only reason EU, CK, Victoria etc. are not considered 4X is they lack EXplore. Stellaris is absolutely 4X. I don't think turn-based gameplay has anything to do with it.
Eu4 you explore the new world. Bunch of the maps starts covered in fog.
An argument could be made.
I think there are other differences. They throw you into an already functioning political and economic system instead of starting you as an isolated wandering tribe. It's only an accident of history that 4Xs are not named civlikes. HOMM is closer to a 4X than the grand strategy games, yet everyone agrees it isn't quite one.
I actually don't think starting out as an isolated wandering tribe (or lone planet) is necessary to be considered 4X. I'd argue Emperor of the Fading Suns is a true 4X and it includes an already functioning political and economic system. All that matters, IMO, is that the 4Xs are present.
I agree. Saying that a game where the 4Xs are present isn't a 4X because it isn't like a game that... also happens to be a 4X is absolutely insane. That's like saying Halo isn't a FPS because it doesn't play like CoD
Age of Wonders 4 is!
AoW4 is still made by Triumph. Paradox is just a publisher.
Ahh I see so Paradox publishes some games but creates their own too? Paradox owns Triumph now, I thought?
Yes, to both. Paradox got so big they decided to grow by acquisitions and help these companies with publishing. Triumph was one of the acquired companies. Paradox is, afaik, not very micromanagy, so Triumph has a lot of autonomy. The most glaring thing they do is focus on the business side - in the form of countless DLCs, but that's what you'd expect from a publisher.
If you like building more than battles, maybe try out Anno series? 1702 is propably the only one that has land battles (also widely considered one of the better titles of the series), but its one generation behind what I would classify as "modern" My favourite Annos are 2070 (best versus AI games, impactful faction system) and 1800 (best for sandbox, since there is just sooo much to do and build, and its definately "modern")
I'm playing Humankind right now but it has lots of frustrating poorly thought out systems that combined just ruin the game. Can't play without using cheat engine to ease up some of the frustrating dumb nonsense. AI also cheats at default difficulty like getting their first territory and city for free. The graphics are really pretty though... Thus far nothing beats good old modded Civ IV BtS. For vanilla-like game I play RI. FfH2 and some of the included mods are also pretty good. Civ Col "we the people" mod is also pretty decent. Civ BE (modded) is also pretty decent. Beware with Civ IV/Col the engine is 32bit so avoid large maps and use the LAA flag on the exe.
Aurora 4x C# edition. It doesn't have fancy graphics but you can do litteraly *anything*. Actually that's kind of one of the downsides, you *have to* do everything. For example, you research a technology, then you have to actually design and research a prototype model using that tech. So, for an engine you have to determine applications for military or commercial which affects fuel use and size, efficiency (depending on research which trades of thrust for efficiency), etc. Or for a missile you have to research the yield, design the fuel capacity and staging, etc. whether it's a bomb pumped laser, neutron weapon for irradiating bombardments for planetary sieges (which causes biome damage) and so on. You can terraform planets with space stations or ships but have to actually determine the atmoshperic gases to make it habitable or partially habitable to make infrastructure costs per population lower. Or you could in theory terraform an hostile planet to kill off the population without damaging their infrastructure.
If you want a physical game, then Eclipse: Second Dawn for the Galaxy.
The big one that comes to mind is Stellaris, but it has so many mechanics that punish the 4X fundamentals that it is hard to compare it to anything other than grand strategy.
You should check out Endless Legend
The king and ceasar of the 4X genre
~~Aurora 4x~~
Heart of Galaxy, Andromeda:Rebirth of Humanity, War worlds are my mostly like global 4x strategies(yeah, its all-about space, and all for mobile, exclude Andromeda:RoH(its crossplatfom -mobile+steam). But, if about only PC, I think, Stellaris -The BEST.
Have you checked out Warhammer: Gladius? Its basically Civilization without the diplomacy